well we are disappointed in each other, i'm sure neither of us are surprised by this. i also find this refernce to sources from you somewhat rich
considering your heavy use of grubby sources in many threads and posts - unsurprisingly/disappointingly i will of course reference WND and
areligionofpeace which you have used ad nauseam

You are projecting. My sources are typically the Koran and canonical Hadith, opinion polls and reports from quality newspapers.

I rarely use sources from anti-Islamic websites as they leave points being made, no matter the merits of the argument, open to ad hominium attacks,
such as the one you just made up there.

As I stated before, I present facts from reputable sources. You write opinion pieces and ad hominium attacks.

The language written into Islamic country's laws around the world making criticism of Islam a criminal offense sure can cause harm.

They'll eventually work these things out for themselves - same as people everywhere. Not all Muslims see the world the same way - things will change.
They definitely don't all see things the way you think they do

How does Islamic law affect you directly? Again, I'll ask you - why are you so concerned with what Harris Zafar has to say?

i have seen you use the mentioned sources many times, and that particular poll via WND twice over the past approx three months. i dont read all of
your threads, though i think i have commented on the majority that i have.

if you feel i use ad hominems, you are ofc free to use the alert button, though i expect mods are reading this thread anyway.

Islam has no understanding of Free Speech. Period. It's probably the most locked down violent religion on the planet. For as much crap as I give
Christians, they are not nearly as bad as people who would kill someone just for muslim and christians falling in love. Even with Christians so
hateful of gays, you dont hear about father's honor killing their gay sons or daughters. You want total freedom of speech and freedom of action in a
religion, including freedom from guilt... Try Satanism. Except there again you have a false father character to worship.

Worship! What are we, a bunch of cavemen dancing around a fire praying to the sun God to bring rain? Is this world really that delusional?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
They'll eventually work these things out for themselves - same as people everywhere. Not all Muslims see the world the same way - things will change.

I hope you are correct. I do hope that Muslims around the world become more tolerant of criticism of Islam and repeal the laws they have enacted in
the vast majority of Islamic states making criticism of Islam a criminal offense.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Again, I'll ask you - why are you so concerned with what Harris Zafar has to say?

Should I not be concerned when a leading Muslim argues on the front page of the Huffington Post that freedom of speech should be restricted when
discussing Islam?

A better question would be why wouldn't I be concerned?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
How does Islamic law affect you directly?

It could very easily if the 57 Islamic states have their way at the UN

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is pushing to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense, through the UN, on a global basis, in line with
antisemitism laws. It has already successfully made advances in that direction.

In important but underreported news, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has abandoned its push for a global ban on blasphemy at the
United Nations, according to the news outlet Reuters. The 57-nation body wanted the General Assembly, which is currently in session, to take up a
binding measure criminalizing speech critical of religion. But Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the OIC, claims his outfit was unable to
convince the United States or European countries to support such a proposal. "We could not convince them," Ihsanoglu said. "The European countries
don't vote with us, the United States doesn't vote with us."

Myth 1: The U.N. resolution opens the door to limiting freedom of speech.
Wrong. The resolution acknowledges the language of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), notably that “any
advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”
It calls on states to take measures “consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such
incidents.” The United States has a reservation to that provision, to the extent that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so
it is not bound by the obligation. In fact, the U.S. has the highest threshold of free speech in the world, and the U.S. government has expressed no
intention of lowering those standards. However, that does not exempt all other states from their legal obligations to fight “incitement, hostility
or violence” according to article 20 of the ICCPR. After all, that is what they signed up to, so they have an obligation by law to honor their
commitment.

I guess the interpretation of everything is up for grabs then - hey olin?

The novelty of this text is that it does not include the harmful concept of “defamation of religions.” Instead, the General Assembly
resolution calls on governments to speak out and to condemn hatred, while encouraging open debate, human rights education, and interfaith and
intercultural initiatives.

The resolution marks a welcome departure from previous U.N texts. For over a decade, efforts were made in several venues at the U.N. to promote the
concept that was intended to prohibit “defamation of religions.” What it did, in fact, was provide cover for abusive national blasphemy laws.
Human Rights First has long argued that this concept is inconsistent with universal human rights standards that protect individuals rather than
abstract ideas or religions. Indeed, blasphemy laws promote a stifling atmosphere in which governments can restrict freedom of expression, thought and
religion and persecute religious minorities. Such resolutions were sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

The novelty of this text is that it does not include the harmful concept of “defamation of religions.” Instead, the General Assembly
resolution calls on governments to speak out and to condemn hatred, while encouraging open debate, human rights education, and interfaith and
intercultural initiatives.

The resolution marks a welcome departure from previous U.N texts. For over a decade, efforts were made in several venues at the U.N. to promote the
concept that was intended to prohibit “defamation of religions.” What it did, in fact, was provide cover for abusive national blasphemy laws.
Human Rights First has long argued that this concept is inconsistent with universal human rights standards that protect individuals rather than
abstract ideas or religions. Indeed, blasphemy laws promote a stifling atmosphere in which governments can restrict freedom of expression, thought and
religion and persecute religious minorities. Such resolutions were sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

thanks for posting that Spira - at least the OP can now cross the UN off of his or her "out to get me" list, which with my new "hug an olln"
approach thanks to Gladtobehere, is a real comfort to me too. now we just need to convince olly that the muslims are not after him and it's all
good. i feel we have made real progress today, thanks again.

Muslims don't say that they should stop some one who is telling the truth , they want themselves to stay out of being insulted.

But you say , "insulting is a part of how we used to define freedom of speech , and we don't wanna give up even if we don't want to insult. We don't
listen to you even if we agree"

Insulting is different than arguing and criticizing and questioning

Islam allows the people who are oppressed to raise their voice , but it forbids insulting because it is nothing but irrational and unreasonable way of
communication.

What is wrong with that ?

Why do you cling to this.

Islam goes out of it's way to persecute other religions and limit freedom of religion, let alone freedom of speech, women's right's, democracy
ect.....

You say "Muslims don't say that they should stop some one who is telling the truth", but it is YOU who defines the Truth. Hard to argue with an
infallible person, isn't it? Who made Islam the sole deciders of what is TRUTH???? There are about 5.4 Billion people who disagree with that.

I also don't get how Muslim leaders get to diss and disparage and spout venom about other religions and then claim foul when people draw a stupid
little cartoon. Your religion has some serious inferiority complex going on if that is what it's believers think and more importantly, respond to such
things. It really is pretty embarrassing to see the "masses" go burn and kill people over a drawing.

It's even more embarrassing or sad I guess I should say, that Apostasy is a punishable offense in most Muslim dominated countries by death or
imprisonment. Like I said, inferiority complex that you just can't let people leave your religion, you have to lock them up or kill them. I call them
as I see them..... that's BARBARIC. I don't know of another major religion that does this, do you?

You can't accept that your own religion is one of the most intolerant religions around.Try to build a Christian Church or Synagogue in most Muslim
countries and see what happens. Those two are Abrahamic religions, if you want to really get persecuted, try being a Bahia in Iran or another Muslim
country.

The day I have a Muslim lecture me about western Freedom of expression, I'll just gladly tell them to practice what they are preaching. You can't go
AP#@#@@, every time someone criticizes your religion. Grow up.

I'm sure you will take this in the spirit it was offered. Please feel free to rant back at me.....it's a free world here at ATS.

The Islamic bloc of 57 nations has been coming back to the UN every year for a number of years trying to push their blasphemy ban through. They will
be back next year, as they were the year before and the year before that.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.